Trump: Texas mass shooting is about mental health, not guns
Source: AP
JILL COLVIN Associated Press Nov 6, 2017 Updated 32 min ago
TOKYO (AP) President Donald Trump says the mass shooting at a Texas church "isn't a guns situation," but is a "mental health problem at the highest level."
Devin Kelley, the man authorities have identified as the gunman, was discharged from the Air Force several years ago for allegedly assaulting his spouse and a child, according to an Air Force spokeswoman.
While no officials have publicly questioned Kelley's mental health, Trump said that "is your problem here." He offered no details.
"This was a very, based on preliminary reports, a very deranged individual. A lot of problems over a long period of time," Trump said when asked about the shooting as he and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held a joint news conference in Tokyo during Trump's first official visit to Asia.
"We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries. But this isn't a guns situation," the president said..........
.........................
Read more: http://www.wacotrib.com/news/ap_nation/headlines/trump-texas-mass-shooting-is-about-mental-health-not-guns/article_d888d7ae-8156-5de3-9992-46db2d50a219.html
truthisfreedom
(23,145 posts)America sighs, finally gets a good night's sleep.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)(see number 2)
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)about mental health issues, since we have a MENTAL patient in the WH. A mental patient representing the USA. Not to mention that several members of this government are not too tightly wrapped. Screwy Louie Gohmert comes to mind.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)See how much more simple that is?
no_hypocrisy
(46,080 posts)to buy as many weapons as they can afford.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Welcome to America. Bullshit it is not a gun problem.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)And that point should be pounded into the media's ears today.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)when he did it...Got it from the internet.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)quaker bill
(8,224 posts)Guns, in particular the emblematic assault type weapon, give small people with massive mental health issues the confidence and ability they need and want to cause this sort of damage. The gun humpers are correct, it is not the gun, it is the person carrying it. However, we must begin to consider how carrying this sort of weaponry changes and emboldens the carrier.
They look lethal, they are advertised as lethal, they ooze a gun geek testosterone-y manliness, and this is not by accident, it is marketing. Now there is nothing in essence wrong with marketing per-se, but unfortunately some of us are damaged and desperate enough to believe and internalize the pitch. These folks feel disempowered, probably for real cause, but they want their power back, so they go and buy some, and them some use it.
It is not the gun, it is the change that having massive lethal fire power makes in the carrier that is the problem.
mpcamb
(2,870 posts)tanyev
(42,550 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,844 posts)doc03
(35,325 posts)and probably bomb some ME country. If it was Jose he would be deporting Mexicans and building his wall
5 feet higher. If it was a black guy he would be calling him a thug and advocating cops shooting them on sight.
This case it's mental illness.
Paladin
(28,252 posts)Only in the U.S. is there a repeated, sickening stream of mass slaughters involving the use of guns. Anybody smarter than trump....let me just repeat that: Anybody smarter than trump, should recognize that guns are a serious problem in our country. Dismissing it as nothing more than a mental health issue is right out of the NRA Diversionary Tactics 101 textbook.
billh58
(6,635 posts)is one of the right-wing gun lobby's bedrock talking points, and has been for decades. Of course there is a mental health factor, but the real issue is the easy access to guns by anyone in this country.
bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)Oh yes, this should be an executive order.
Bengus81
(6,931 posts)And on and on it goes.............
Timmygoat
(779 posts)Passed legislation to control sales of guns to the mentally ill, and someone named Trump repealed it!
madokie
(51,076 posts)fucking human killing machines in the hands of too many crazy people. pretty fucking simple
I have a ton of brothers, nephews and friends who hunt and not a single one of them use a killing machine that has a 20 - 30 - 50 round clip. They all laugh when I ask about why that is
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Paladin
(28,252 posts)Just part of the game.
(Machine guns are fully automatic; the firearm that lunatic used in Texas was tricked out to look like a military-issue machine gun, but it was in fact a semi-automatic weapon. None of the foregoing will render any of those poor churchgoers any less dead or injured.)
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)I'm not gonna do it anymore.
Paladin
(28,252 posts)And if I prefer the NY Times' definition of what an "assault rifle" is, rather than what Ted Nugent says it is, then tough fucking shit.
eppur_se_muova
(36,259 posts)So what's his point ? Either way, Repugs are getting their constituents killed in droves.
It IS about gun control. It is ALSO about mental illness. It is ALSO about domestic abuse. It is a complex, real world problem, and like many real world problems, it is "about" more than one thing at a time. Neither our Congress nor our fake "president" can deal with ANY of the problems facing the country, so they are the worst ones possible to be handling -- or even commenting on -- the problem.
Turbineguy
(37,319 posts)These guns are designed for shooting people. And we'll just pretend that they are breaking into your house.
ollie10
(2,091 posts).....to further Trump's agenda about people being armed helping.
It turns out it was a suicide.....
Now Trump is proclaiming the person mentally ill.....
Even if you concede his point.....there are mentally ill people in other countries. It is in the USA where the mentally ill get their guns.....much easier and much more frequently.....than in other countries
Crazy? What is insanity is continuing to do things the same way over and over and expect different results!!!
Vinca
(50,261 posts)He seems to think he's immune - as do most Republicans. I'll bet you anything the non-child victims in Texas were Republicans. Every country has mentally ill people, but our country is the only one that allows them to have weapons.
Freethinker65
(10,009 posts)I mean why would any sane person set out to deliberately harm a group of people (often a majority of which has never done them any harm and might even include people sympathetic to their cause)?
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Yup
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Perhaps Sarah Sanders can clear this up.